For next: 32476
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 98 days
Last activity: 7 days
|AIM: || ||#1 Posted on 18.11.02 0023.29 |
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0025.11
| One of the most tried and true methods of building up someone into a huge star is the undefeated streak method. While it doesn't always work (see Tatanka), in recent times we have seen it have two major triumphs in Goldberg and Lesnar. |
One of the booking tricks inherent in this angle is the idea of the momentous moment when this undefeated monster gets pinned for the first time. This seems to be a very delicate issue, as under the right circumstances one might be able to build another major star by letting that person be the one to break the streak. However, if the streak is broken in a manner that doesn't seem befitting of the person, not only does no one else gain heat from this angle, but the person involved loses heat. The reference point for this is of course the day that Kevin Nash decided to book himself over Bill Goldberg for the WCW Title at Starrcade 98. In a screwjob fraught finish Nash used a cattle prod to end Goldberg's year-plus winning streak. The crowd was quite unhappy with this decision, Nash gained no heat, and the mystique of Goldberg was tarnished, some would say irreparably, and considering the future of WCW from that point on, there might be something to this.
Fast forwarding to the year 2002. WWE, in a year where they seem determined to bungle everything they get, somehow through sheer luck and determined booking they succeed in getting Brock Lesnar over as an unbeatable monster. Sacrificing what seems to be the career of Hulk Hogan, jobbing the Rock clean in the middle of the ring at perhaps their 2nd biggest PPV of the year, and having the Undertaker putting Lesnar over clean in his signature HITC match, they had elevated the Lesnar mystique to where people were assuming it a foregone conclusion that he would go into WM as the champion.
And then tonight, they decided to take the momentous occasion of the monster, the unbeatable young champion, and spend it on a match 3rd from the top, and on which a major star debuts. And they decided to spend it on a wrestler who has up until now shown no desire, no real drawing ability, no interview skills, and who really doesn't fit in on the show to which he was traded.
So I ask the good folks of Wienerville to explain this decision to me. Tell me why you would spend a once-in-a-career opportunity on the Big Show, a guy who will likely be nothing more than a transitional champion, and who even the most adamant anti-smarks would likely agree will never be a major player in the WWE on a permanent basis. The fact that he is champion I don't think is important. I just want to know why you would take the first and only chance to end Lesnar's streak and use it the way they did.
|Promote this thread!|| |
For next: 51347
From: Toms River, NJ
Since last post: 1645 days
Last activity: 1469 days
|AIM: || ||#2 Posted on 18.11.02 0031.25 |
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0034.17
| First off, Lesnar's lost before. His gimmick isn't a super long win streak, it's that he's a big tough monster. |
Secondly, The way the match was booked was to make him look screwed out of the title, not like he's a punk. I'm sure after he heals from his injury he'll squash Show and take the title back.
For next: 19973
From: Eagan, MN
Since last post: 4136 days
Last activity: 4093 days
|#3 Posted on 18.11.02 0034.19 |
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0039.29
| Personally, I think putting the title on Big Show is a good idea. They should feed him someone big at Armageddon, then job him to Lesnar at the Royal Rumble. |
For next: 5038
From: Kitimat, British Columbia, Canada
Since last post: 3753 days
Last activity: 3371 days
|#4 Posted on 18.11.02 0035.33 |
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0044.48
| If he headn't been injured, they probably wouldn't have done it. However, since he was, what choice did they have? Better to get it over with than have the backstage politicians arguing over who gets to end the streak like Hogan and Nash in 98. |
For next: 138542
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)
Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 hour
|#5 Posted on 18.11.02 0045.48 |
Reposted on: 18.11.09 0051.23
| I haven't seen the ppv YET (have yet to receive the tape from my SKY sports tape-guy), but I will try to explain it anyways.|
Brock with Paul has no chance of being a true face.
Big Show with Paul has good chance of being a big heel.
Paul ranting about picking sides with the bigger and better man will make Show a heel and Brock an underdog face.
For a month they will (I assume, depending on that injury) build towards a renewed confrontation..this time Brock being the guy who battles against the odds. This time, Heyman will work against Lesnar and doing all the wicked tricks he can find to keep Show away from Brock.
This time Brock will not only face someone huge like Show but the wicked evilness of Heyman too. It has already been proven that he can F5 the Big Show, so it just might be an outright slaughter once Brock finally gets his hands on Show, but due to Heyman's antics we will not realize that until the match is over.
This is how I see it. I admit, this might not be the way they go..but heh..
As for sounding like I LIKE the Big Show as my champ..
I logged on at work, went to WWE and spent the next five minutes throwing objects at my screen (same for HBK winning)
that's how much I like it. But as always I see things in a semi-positive light and can only hope for the best.
|ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE